CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 1 août 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s78179214 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:95% } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2B794F18 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:95% } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s9AFF8173 { width:17.68pt; display:inline-block } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sBFBB76EA { width:116.22pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB16CE1A1 { width:62.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC609DCDC { width:88.86pt; display:inline-block } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .s147A4AAD { width:18pt; display:inline-block } .s8AFB426F { width:32.67pt; display:inline-block } .s68BA453A { width:7.99pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     560   1.8.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING CZECH REPUBLIC, AUSTRIA, FRANCE AND GREECE     The European Court of Human Rights notified in writing yesterday 1 chamber judgment [1] in the following case:     1)   Barfuss v. Czech Republic (application no. 35848/97) Violation Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1   Jiří Barfuss, a Czech national, complained under Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) of the European Convention of Human Rights about the length of his detention on remand (more than three years and five months) in the Czech Republic following his arrest on suspicion of fraud. He also complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) about the length of criminal proceedings brought against him, which lasted more than three years and ten months. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 100,000 Czech crowns (CZK) for non-pecuniary damage and CZK   100,000 for costs and expenses. The judgment exists only in English.   Furthermore, the Court has today notified in writing 4 chamber judgments 1 in the following cases:   2)   Entleitner v. Austria (no. 29544/95)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Helmut Entleitner, a farmer living in Piesendorf (Salzburg), complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that, in proceedings concerning a share of an agricultural association, the agricultural authorities lacked independence and impartiality and that he did not have any public hearing. The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards an independent and impartial tribunal but that there had been a violation on account of the lack of a public hearing before the Administrative Court. The Court awarded the applicant 40,000   Austrian schillings (ATS) for costs and expenses. (Judgment in English).   3)   C.P. and Others v. France (no. 36009/97)   No violation Article 6 § 1   C.P., J.F.P., E.P., C.P., T.P. and A.P. complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length (seven years, ten months and seven days) of criminal proceedings brought against them for embezzlement and fraud. The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. (Judgment in French).   4)   Savvidou v. Greece (no. 38704/97) Violation Articles 6 § 1 and 1 of Protocol No. 1   Lena Savvidou complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the Convention about the length (five years, seven months and twenty-four days) of civil proceedings to which she was a party as a result of the expropriation of part of her land and the refusal by the authorities to give compensation. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded her 51,690,000   Greek drachmas (GRD) for pecuniary damage, GRD 3,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage and GRD 3,000,000 for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French).   5)   P.B. v. France (no. 38781/97)   Violation Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1   P.B. complained under Article 5 § 3 of the length of his detention on remand (four years, eight months and three days) and under Article 6 § 1 of the length of criminal proceedings (also four years, eight months and three days) brought against him following his arrest for aggravated theft, criminal conspiracy and possession of a class-one weapon. The Court held that there had been a violation of Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 and awarded him 30,000 French francs (FRF) for costs and expenses. (Judgment in French).     ***   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92) Or:     Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax:     (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in 1959 in Strasbourg to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court.   [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court.   In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.